Tom Barrack says he was attempting to tell Lebanese journalists to ‘be civilised’ but notes that they were ‘just doing their job’.
United States diplomat Tom Barrack has expressed regret for calling Lebanese journalists “animalistic”, days after his comments stirred outrage across the Middle East.
However, in a Thursday interview with social media personality Mario Nawfal, Barrack repeated his call for Lebanese reporters to be “civilised”.
He nevertheless conceded he should have been more “tolerant” in his remarks to the reporters who shouted questions after he met with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun earlier this week.
“‘Animalistic’ was a word that I didn’t use in a derogatory manner. I’m just saying: Can we calm down? Can we find some tolerance and kindness? Let’s be civilised,” said Barrack, who serves as ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy for Syria and Lebanon.
“But it was inappropriate to do when the media is just doing their job.”
Barrack, who is of Lebanese descent, used the podcast appearance to address the remarks he made on Tuesday, after he emerged from his meeting with Aoun at the presidential palace near Beirut.
As he met reporters in the briefing room, he was met with a barrage of questions that left him visibly irritated.
“Please be quiet for a moment,” Barrack said.
“And I want to tell you something: The moment this starts becoming chaotic — like, animalistic — we’re gone. So, you want to know what’s happening? Act civilised, act kind, act tolerant, because this is the problem with what is happening in the region.”
Those comments sparked widespread anger, with some critics arguing that Barrack’s remarks sum up Washington’s condescending approach to the region.
Disarming Hezbollah
It is not uncommon for reporters to shout questions at officials before or after diplomatic meetings. In the US, the practice is known as a journalistic “spray”.
Barrack has repeatedly visited Lebanon as part of an effort to secure an agreement that would see the disarming of Hezbollah in exchange for promises that Israel would fully withdraw from the country and end its daily attacks.
Last month, the Lebanese government passed a resolution tasking the army with formulating a plan to remove Hezbollah’s weapons by the end of the year.
Hezbollah rebuked the decision, saying that the group will “treat [the resolution] as if it doesn’t exist”.
Israel — which receives billions of military dollars in US aid — has continued its daily attacks across Lebanon, effectively preventing the residents of south Lebanon from returning to their border towns, many of which have been obliterated in the bombings.
The Israeli military still occupies five areas inside Lebanese territory, as well as the disputed Shebaa Farms area that Lebanon claims as its own.
Hezbollah — battered from last year’s war that killed its top political and military leadership — has largely abided by the ceasefire agreement reached in November 2024 despite Israeli violations.
But it has rejected calls to disarm, arguing that its weapons protect Lebanon from Israel’s expansionist aims. The group has accused the Lebanese government of following US and Israeli diktats.
Hezbollah also maintains that the Lebanese military alone is unable to defend southern Lebanon.
The Lebanese government, however, has said that only the state can protect all of its citizens, insisting that the Lebanese Armed Forces must be the only side with weapons in the country.
The impasse risks internal confrontations within Lebanon, which has been reeling from security and economic crises for years.
Hezbollah’s response
Earlier this week, Ibrahim Moussawi, a member of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, slammed Barrack’s comments to journalists, saying that they represent the “foolishness and arrogance” of the US approach to Lebanon.
“This envoy embodies, with absolute honesty, the reality of the United States of America and the essence of the barbaric, aggressive philosophy upon which it was founded,” Moussawi said.
He also criticised the Lebanese government for failing to take a strong stance against Barrack, including by summoning the US ambassador to Beirut.
Already this week, Barack cut short a trip to south Lebanon, where Hezbollah enjoys popular support, amid protests over his statements.
This was not the first time, however, that Barrack had provoked controversy in Lebanon.
Last month, he suggested that Lebanon could become part of greater Syria to highlight the dangers that the country is facing.
“Syrians say Lebanon is our beach resort. So we need to move. And I know how frustrated the Lebanese people are. It frustrates me,” he said.
The assertion was a rare comment by a Western official questioning the viability of Lebanon as a country.
Barack later said that the US policy is to support Syria and Lebanon as two “equal and sovereign” neighbours.
“My comments yesterday praised Syria’s impressive strides, not a threat to Lebanon,” he wrote in a social media post in response to the backlash.
